How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 8 Feb 2010 04:02 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:b271acc9-3b71-4da8-ac13-ca3011ac7a57(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Feb, 18:15, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> news:57a27bea-b69e-4390-925d-88de021b80a6(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 7 Feb, 09:58, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- >> > pies.co.am> wrote: >> >> Doug wrote: >> >> > On 7 Feb, 08:56, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> Brimstone wrote: >> >> >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> >>>news:baeb5a4e-d64d-455f-89c6-f3f070bd652f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>> On 5 Feb, 19:14, BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> On 5 Feb, 08:57, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but >> >> >>>>>> how many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? >> >> >> >>>>> Dunno - going to tell us, Doug? >> >> >> >>>> That's what I am trying to find out but as usual the responses >> >> >>>> here >> >> >>>> are useless. There should be some way to estimate how many die >> >> >>>> later. >> >> > As deaths after 30 days of road crash injuries are not recorded as >> >> > such I was hoping for something like a guesstimate formula or ratio >> >> > based on some research sampling. >> >> >> I think I can give you at least one thoroughly reliable statistic, >> >> Doug. >> >> 100% of people involved in a crash die later. There's an irrefutable >> >> 1:1 >> >> correlation. >> >> >> Just goes to show how dangerous they are, and how they ought to be >> >> banned. >> >> >> I'm sure I also saw a headline in the Daily Mail a few months ago "Do >> >> crashes cause cancer?". As an avid reader, you probably remember it. >> >> So, >> >> you're right, we should abandon this silly 30-days thing altogether. >> >> You >> >> can die a lot later after a crash. >> >> > It is more a case of dying later from a specific injury caused in a >> > crash. Presumably each type of injury has its prognosis? >> >> All injuries have exactly the same prognosis, either they heal or they >> don't. >> > You over simplify. What about the effect of stress on the body? Also, > some injuries are more life-threatening than others. > If an injury threatens life to the point if death then I think it's safe to say that the prognosis would be "non-healing".
From: Adrian on 8 Feb 2010 04:38 "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> You over simplify. What about the effect of stress on the body? Also, >> some injuries are more life-threatening than others. > Being alive is a death sentence. Life. A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 8 Feb 2010 16:45 Doug wrote: > On 5 Feb, 20:25, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how >>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? Thirty days after an incident has been chosen in several areas of medicine, as a result of long exerience, as the point at which death has a very low probability of being linked to it. Where studies have been carried out, they support that choice. A good example is sudden cardiac death following a heart attack. The probability of death within the first 30 days is about the same as during the entire following year, when it is lower than the average for the general population. >>> http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/faqukcasualties/1914 >>> "In 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) 2,946 >>> people were killed on Britain�s roads [1]. >> Hmmm. 0.00491% of the population. Statistically irrelevant. >> >> Heart disease - 20.2% >> Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9% >> Lung cancer - 6.9% >> Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6% >> Flu/pneumonia - 5% >> Prostate cancer - 3.7% >> Colon cancer - 3.1% >> Lymph cancers - 2.3% >> Alzheimer's disease/dementia - 2.1% >> Aortic aneurysm - 2% >> > Very few of which are directly caused by other people, unlike road > deaths. Nevertheless, most are preventable or treatable. Are you saying we should divert money from try to prevent deaths from some of the major killers in society to a very minor one? Colin Bignell
From: Mortimer on 8 Feb 2010 16:59 "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message news:-bOdnQm7TeeeG-3WnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Doug wrote: >> On 5 Feb, 20:25, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> Doug wrote: >>>> Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how >>>> many die later from their injuries and are unrecorded? > > Thirty days after an incident has been chosen in several areas of > medicine, as a result of long exerience, as the point at which death has a > very low probability of being linked to it. Where studies have been > carried out, they support that choice. A good example is sudden cardiac > death following a heart attack. The probability of death within the first > 30 days is about the same as during the entire following year, when it is > lower than the average for the general population. > > >>>> http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/faqukcasualties/1914 >>>> "In 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) 2,946 >>>> people were killed on Britain�s roads [1]. >>> Hmmm. 0.00491% of the population. Statistically irrelevant. >>> >>> Heart disease - 20.2% >>> Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9% >>> Lung cancer - 6.9% >>> Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6% >>> Flu/pneumonia - 5% >>> Prostate cancer - 3.7% >>> Colon cancer - 3.1% >>> Lymph cancers - 2.3% >>> Alzheimer's disease/dementia - 2.1% >>> Aortic aneurysm - 2% >>> >> Very few of which are directly caused by other people, unlike road >> deaths. > > Nevertheless, most are preventable or treatable. Are you saying we should > divert money from trying to prevent deaths from some of the major killers > in society to a very minor one? Sadly, I think Duhg has got such a bee in his bonnet about road deaths due to his favourite bugbear, powered vehicles, that he probably *does* think that a disproportionate amount of money should be spent preventing them, compared with preventing deaths due to heart disease or various forms of cancer. It's interesting to see that stats you mention above. I'd no idea that flu and pneumonia were such big killers. It's interesting also that you mention a cut-off time of 30 days. I believe that in legal cases of death following assault, a there is/was a period of a year and a day, beyond which death is not deemed to be a result of being attacked.
From: Christopher Bowlas on 8 Feb 2010 19:03
On Feb 5, 8:57 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > Fatal injuries are recorded up to 30 days following a crash but how > many die later All the rest. |